Terence Crawford has climbed to the top of the pound-for-pound lists after his victory over Canelo, and on paper that sounds like a moment of clarity in a messy sport. But let’s be honest — do the pound-for-pound rankings really mean anything? Or are they just another layer of boxing politics that fans pretend to care about until the next big fight rolls around?
Crawford pound for pound king?
There’s no denying Crawford’s credentials. He’s beaten everyone put in front of him, he’s unified divisions, and now he’s toppled Canelo. On any list, he deserves respect at number one. But pound-for-pound is, at best, a guide. It’s a conversation starter for casual fans who want to know who the “best fighter in the world” is.
The problem? It’s entirely subjective. ESPN, The Ring, BoxRec, the sanctioning bodies — they all have their own versions. One man’s number one is another man’s number five. It’s not a ranking with consequences, just an opinion with a glossy headline.
Do pound-for-pound lists help or hurt?
In some ways, yes. Promoters love them because they can sell fights around them — “#1 vs #3 in the world,” even when the match-up has nothing to do with belts. Fans love debating them, and debates drive interest.
But here’s the harsh truth: pound-for-pound lists don’t decide fights, money does. Which brings us to the wider problem — the world rankings themselves.
Do world rankings even matter anymore?
This should be the backbone of boxing. In theory, the top contender in a division should earn their shot based on merit. But we all know that’s not how it works.
We’ve seen it countless times:
- Manny Pacquiao returned after years away and jumped straight into a headline fight despite not being active in the rankings.
- Anthony Joshua hasn’t fought in over a year, technically not ranked, but the moment he steps back, it’ll be for a major belt or eliminator.
When governing bodies hand out opportunities based on ticket sales, celebrity status, or political leverage, the entire idea of rankings gets exposed.
The politics behind the belts
Sanctioning bodies make money from sanctioning fees. That means the bigger the fight, the more money they make. So who gets the shot? Usually the fighter who brings the most eyeballs, not necessarily the one who’s earned it in the ring.
It’s why we end up with logjams, interim titles, silver belts, diamond belts — anything to attach a fee to. And while all this happens, genuine contenders get sidelined.
So why do we still care?
Because, as messy as it is, boxing needs some sort of order. Fans want to know where their favourite sits in the sport. Journalists need something to argue about. Promoters need a narrative to pitch.
Crawford at number one is deserved — no argument there. But should we, as fans, really put much weight on pound-for-pound or even sanctioning body rankings? Probably not. At best, they’re a guide. At worst, they’re just another reminder that politics drives the sport more than merit.
Final bell
Maybe the better question isn’t whether Crawford deserves his pound-for-pound crown (he does), but whether the rankings — both mythical and official — still serve boxing at all.
What do you think — do pound-for-pound lists and world rankings help the sport, or are they just smoke and mirrors? Drop your thoughts in the comments, share this post, and head over to CMBoxing for more opinion pieces like this.